Continued Studies; 01/14/2006

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

01/14/2006

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

01-14-2006

Further in Book XXVIII, Montesquieu approaches the subject more in depth of early established law and its structure – He compares, mostly in central Europe and Italy, the differences between “barbaric” laws and the “Roman” laws.

This is really quite interesting as he describes the “barbaric” laws as more “free flowing” and the Roman laws as more “rigid,” citing that with the fall of the Roman law, the only places that maintained it were the clergy.

This brings several very curious things to light. Firstly that of the notoriously corrupt Roman law structures being maintained within the church at the time of their fall. Further that a person can see echoes of these differences still playing our in modern society.

A “grand” example being that those posing as officials within or associated with the government, tend to lean toward the despotic Roman law dynamic of pretending adherence to law while doing anything they can get away with quite to the contrary, while the bodies of citizens in different areas greatly reflect the more harmonious and less rigid “barbarian law” structures.

The church reflects this as well in some degree. The interaction of this produces an atmosphere of deceit and envy. Those posturing within that pseudo righteous stance of supposedly adhering strictly to written law (while misinterpreting it and using it out of context in every way from one moment to the next) seeing those within the population as “getting away with something” or “failing to adhere to law” in not doing so themselves. As if it were written law and posturing of it that maintained society as opposed to the body of citizens that put forward the “ideas” which constitute those laws, in their everyday life. As if the purpose in establishing such standards is to weigh and be wielded heavily upon the population, by the population in the manner of daily literal execution of them, as opposed to being what they are in use and practicality.

As if they should bind forcefully, in every manner and conceivable context – the population which put them forward. Insisting those laws are weapons instead of productive tools. Weapons which most time are wielded in manners un-intended for their use by those “posturing a Roman stance,” against and on the population itself for various unhealthy reasons. As if the “government” were for them, in some righteous manner and not for the body of citizens which allow it to govern them – optimally, through their own standards and voices.

Strangely the tone of this posturing is used in an attempt to justify in some abstract way, the corruptions that are perpetrated within that governing structure – as if that were the use of such office. The “lackadaisical” approach in everyday life being seen as some form of further justification in such corruptions and uses out of context of those achieved standards.

It is a rather good study in looking at that area between use and tyrannical usurpation. Many social dangers… one of which being class warfare.

I’ll not be so naïve as to suggest that laws should be seen solely as guidelines, but I will not side with the despotic, corrupt usurpation either.

In my opinion such writ and dictation should firstly be used to reflect and promote the society envisioned and experienced daily by those that live under said law. It should be the “playground” in which we exist with common sense and the simplicity of the very reasons for which such laws were first wrought.

I do admit that a large portion of the game on that “playground” is in politics – but what sort of a game is it when it is no longer for any purpose other than politics – the sake of being, or being seen as political? Especially when the tools for maintaining society become clumsy weapons for the desperate.